I think the problem with most of these debates was alluded to further down in this thread and discussed quite a bit in the Plato's Pub thread a few months back. Any data (not evidence--see below) we can present can be fit into almost any hypothesis with a minimum of difficulty. Because no one is offering their theory as the "We-have-all-the-details-worked-out" theory (ok, no one who can be taken seriously), it's fairly simple to reinterpret the data to fit your pet ideas.
Probably the biggest hurdle to obtaining true "evidence" is our very limited scientific understanding. Some have estimated that the invention of the computer has allowed us to understand 22,000 years' worth of research in this century (in pre-computer years)--an improvement of 220 times--but all it has done has demonstrate our lack of understanding. Each new advance opens up a new level of complexity which must be studied, and it takes decades before we can be said to have a grasp on a new field of study. We will have no real "evidence" until we reach the informational limits of the complex world in which we live. Obviously, we need to build a Central Computer Complex III to speed things up.
My other peeve with this issue is not one with the real reasoned debaters, but the psuedosciencemongers (did I just invent a new word?). At least in popular media, evolution is portrayed as a scientific hypothesis against alternate supernatural hypotheses. Evolution is not
scientific, but
naturalistic. The issue is usually one of competing worldviews, not one of science and myth.
[edit]The distinction between scientific and naturalistic is important because most people think evolution is scientifically provable while recognizing that creation is outside the realm of science. The only "scientific" means of proving macroevolution is to observe it (requiring long periods of time), which still would not prove it as the means of species origination.
Also, I don't buy into the currently popular "Evolution has nothing to do with origins" mantra.
Micro-evolution has nothing to do with origins, nor is it much disputed(although I think the terminology is unfortunate--adaptation worked quite nicely, thank you). However, when one says "Microevolution,
ergo macroevolution," one is dealing with origins and hypothesis. Unless, of course, one wants to Fyronize the word origin to mean "the origin of the first life form" instead of "the origin of all life forms."
It's always helpful to know exactly what we're saying here.
[ May 16, 2003, 22:37: Message edited by: Krsqk ]